Claiming hitler was a Christian tells me u wallow in ignorance. Pls try making use of google in order not to sound too ignorant.

Hitler was a christian. Ignorant one.

"God with us" was written on the Nazis belt.

As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

kwangi: Keep shut my friend if you're not sure what you are saying.Are you blind?Point out the beliefs I mentioned not universal in buddhism.I expressly point the one that falls under that category out. Read through again.Superior argument my ass.My friend define god according to logicboy!

Not only that. Ypu should aware that there are more atheists hell-bent on seeing religion kicked out. This is proven by the existence of organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation. There's a reason for the term militant atheist. However most people who defend Christianity know that atheism is pretty much here to stay.

omo_to_dun:No, he didn't have to. I don't like when folks resort to insulting others in other to make a point. Of course, I have been guilty of that too.

As per the discussion, atheism is not a religion. It is simply a disbelief in God. Simple! You can be an atheist and be a Buddhist, because Buddhism has no gods. There are no atheist beliefs or tenets. Some believe in evolution, some don't; some believe in the Big B_ang Theory, others don't. The only thing atheist have in common is that they don't believe in a god. Period.

thanks for the honest response. I used to think al atheists believ in evolution, gues i was wrong.

Not only that. Ypu should aware that there are more atheists hell-bent on seeing religion kicked out. This is proven by the existence of organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation. There's a reason for the term militant atheist. However most people who defend Christianity know that atheism is pretty much here to stay.

I can not force people to leave their beliefs. I dot think that one should be forced out of his religion. The best I can do is make my arguments against religion and it is left for the person to accept or reject

Most atheist organisations have the same approach. Atheists dont kill infidels or claim that non-believers will perish in hell

kwangi: "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners" - Jonathon Miller.I've found this to be true.I don't know if anyone can give reasons why it is so.

If practitioners of religions do not take their religions seriously, what makes them religious practitioners? Perhaps they are all just pretenders (two-faced good fr nothing waste of everybody's time!) and atheists are right not to take them seriously. Well, someone has observed that its the opium of the masses. The masses? who wants to be part of the masses?

Firstly, this' not the issue. Even if it was, your post failed you.He even admitted his teacher's stance that belief in reincarnation is fundamental to buddhism.Lack thereof would amount to something other than buddhism.

The second guy dey confused and was yarning bvllshiiit all through the article.

omo_to_dun:No one ever said that it equates atheism. That is why there are atheist Buddhists. If it does the term atheist Buddhists would be meaningless. Christianity has Jehovah. Islam has Allah. Buddhism has no gods. Period!

Buddhists beliefs do not entail the divine, as in belief in some deity. I have tons of Buddhists friends and none of them has ever spoken about some deity. If I am wrong, please show me some evidence.

And yes, Buddhists do offer prayers, for example:May I be well, happy, and peaceful.May my teachers be well, happy, and peaceful.May my parents be well, happy, and peaceful.May my relatives be well, happy, and peaceful etc

As you can see, these are not like traditional Christian or Muslim prayers. And all these beliefs still do not involve any deity. Buddhism is nothing more than a philosophy.

Who defines traditional?A religion which it's goal is spiritual enlightenment does not have an idea of divinity?"May my parents be well"! That's a prayer to me!"May all the evil plans against me never see the light of the day"... What's the difference?

I will make a prediction . They will have to change drastically and modernise to survive the next 100 years. Xtianity might be able to do that but Islam cant.

seriously, you think Islam cant survive the next two centuries?

With the high birth rate among muslim communities, their strong Islamic indoctrination from childhood, refusal to modify and rationalise Islamic belief system in light of modern science and with the persecution and sometimes the threat of fatwa on those who dare to leave islam, methinks Islam is here to stay for a very very long time.

People will still need the comfort and community support that only religion can provide, even if religious claims are not verifiable and logically sensible.

Until humans are able to answer all the great perplexing questions of life and find meaning for their life without resorting to religion, religion is here to stay, maybe forever till the end of time.

I must also add to my prediction that secularism and humansim, which are based on atheism, will continue to flourish and increase all the more. More closet atheist will begin to come out. Some muslims and christians are secretly atheists. They just dont want to be ostracised from their family and friends by openly challenging and questioning some things in their religion. But in the future, it will be easier to declare oneself an atheist or agnostic.

kwangi: Firstly, this' not the issue. Even if it was, your post failed you.He even admitted his teacher's stance that belief in reincarnation is fundamental to buddhism.Lack thereof would amount to something other than buddhism.

The second guy dey confused and was yarning bvllshiiit all through the article.

Lol.

Your comment failed you.

You claim that a buddhist is confused about his own religion. The second article clearly makes the point that rencarnation is metaphorical to buddhists of today.

You misread the first link makes the point that there is no Buddhist heretic. The Dalai Lama clearly states; Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned. So the guy doesnt believe in reincarnation

kwangi: Who defines traditional?A religion which it's goal is spiritual enlightenment does not have an idea of divinity?"May my parents be well"! That's a prayer to me!"May all the evil plans against me never see the light of the day"... What's the difference?

There is no god mentioned, just a hopeful statement. You didnt say "in Jesus/Buddha's name"

kwangi: "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners" - Jonathon Miller.I've found this to be true.I don't know if anyone can give reasons why it is so.

Atheists (including myself) don't take religion seriously-which is why we are Atheists. There is an interest in religion political, economic, and social systems and how they influence behavior. Most Atheists are also formerly religious so there is time given to reflect on how or if religion shaped their values/beliefs.

Atheists (including myself) don't take religion seriously-which is why we are Atheists. There is an interest in religion political, economic, and social systems and how they influence behavior. Most Atheists are also formerly religious so there is time given to reflect on how or if religion shaped their values/beliefs.

I understand your point but I don't think it explains the regular urge of atheists to attack religious folks.This ranges from derisive comments to quoting bible or koran in order to prove the stupidity of their religion.

kwangi: I understand your point but I don't think it explains the regular urge of atheists to attack religious folks.This ranges from derisive comments to quoting bible or koran in order to prove the stupidity of their religion.

A cornered animal will fight back.

Atheists and disbelievers have been abused, killed, discriminated against etc in the past by religious people for centuries, even up till today.

kwangi: I understand your point but I don't think it explains the regular urge of atheists to attack religious folks.This ranges from derisive comments to quoting bible or koran in order to prove the stupidity of their religion.

You didn't ask me to explain why Atheists attack people who follow religious doctrine, your perception not a fact, neither did the OP. Usually when someone wants an explanation they ask for it, unless they're baiting.

You didn't ask me to explain why Atheists attack people who follow religious doctrine, your perception not a fact, neither did the OP. Usually when someone wants an explanation they ask for it, unless they're baiting.

What did you think taking religion" more serious than the practitioners meant"?I'm not baiting. I never said it was a fact!Check again. I'll appreciate it if you explain why they attack people who follow religious doctrines and the doctrines in question.

kwangi: What did you think taking religion" more serious than the practitioners meant"?I'm not baiting. I never said it was a fact!Check again. I'll appreciate it if you explain why they attack people who follow religious doctrines and the doctrines in question.

Your OP didn't state or imply in context that Miller's perspective was an attack, just that you found it to be true. Miller is pointing out an inconsistency, an observation not an attack.

Moving on to your question-thank you for asking-"why they attack people who follow religious doctrines and the doctrines in question."Because religion and people who ascribe to religion aren't above scrutiny. Atheists give themselves the same liberty to condemn religion (and its followers) as religious people give themselves to condemn unbelievers and believers of a different doctrine.

There are no victims here. <This point is crucial because once an accuser puts themselves in the role of "victim" they not only remove their accountability, they elevate themselves above the rest of humanity.

Your OP didn't state or imply in context that Miller's perspective was an attack, just that you found it to be true. Miller is pointing out an inconsistency, an observation not an attack.

Moving on to your question-thank you for asking-"why they attack people who follow religious doctrines and the doctrines in question."Because religion and people who ascribe to religion aren't above scrutiny. Atheists give themselves the same liberty to condemn religion (and its followers) as religious people give themselves to condemn unbelievers and believers of a different doctrine.

There are no victims here. <This point is crucial because once an accuser puts themselves in the role of "victim" they not only remove their accountability, they elevate themselves above the rest of humanity.

Relax. I think almost everybody understood the quote and it's context.

As for the rest of your answer, beautiful!But you must realize that not every religion gives themselves the said liberty of condemning people of a different belief. At least, pagans don't.I understand whenever religion is mentioned, Christianity and Islam comes to mind.

kwangi: Relax. I think almost everybody understood the quote and it's context.

As for the rest of your answer, beautiful!But you must realize that not every religion gives themselves the said liberty of condemning people of a different belief. At least, pagans don't.I understand whenever religion is mentioned, Christianity and Islam comes to mind.

Don't project, you used the word "attack".

Pagans aren't exempt from critique just because they don't offer them, there is no evidence to prove they don't either. Christianity and Islam are to religion what Blacks and Whites are to Race. There are plenty of other racial categories just like there are other religions but these are the groups that represent opposites that need to be negotiated in society.

Pagans aren't exempt from critique just because they don't offer them, there is no evidence to prove they don't either. Christianity and Islam are to religion what Blacks and Whites are to Race. There are plenty of other racial categories just like there are other religions but these are the groups that represent opposites that need to be negotiated in society.

Like I said before almost everybody understood the quote and it's context. There is nothing to argue there IMO.Which human being doesn't have one or two things to say about the other? But in this case, tolerance is the word. Pagans don't give themselves the liberty of condemning people of a different belief. Simple.I feel you on the Christian/Islam explanation.

kwangi: Like I said before almost everybody understood the quote and it's context. There is nothing to argue there IMO.Which human being doesn't have one or two things to say about the other? But in this case, tolerance is the word. Pagans don't give themselves the liberty of condemning people of a different belief. Simple.I feel you on the Christian/Islam explanation.

I also said there is no proof that they don't. Considering their size, compared to Christianity and Islam, it could be a drown-out. The charge that Atheists "attack" Pagans was pretty far fetched. Pagan beliefs don't conflict with secular living and practitioners don't demand their beliefs be the root for social conduct. Most Atheists stand where religion (in practice) attempts to infringe on society (legal systems-this includes sanctioning death/violence/abuse, education, healthcare, politics, and the economy) in secular nations.

kwangi: Like I said before almost everybody understood the quote and it's context. There is nothing to argue there IMO.Which human being doesn't have one or two things to say about the other? But in this case, tolerance is the word. Pagans don't give themselves the liberty of condemning people of a different belief. Simple.I feel you on the Christian/Islam explanation.

And again, for the record, you considered Miller's quote an attack, not me.

I also said there is no proof that they don't. Considering their size, compared to Christianity and Islam, it could be a drown-out. The charge that Atheists "attack" Pagans was pretty far fetched. Pagan beliefs don't conflict with secular living and practitioners don't demand their beliefs be the root for social conduct. Most Atheists stand where religion (in practice) attempts to infringe on society (legal systems-this includes sanctioning death/violence/abuse, education, healthcare, politics, and the economy) in secular nations.

They don't. What kind of proof do you want or expect. In what form?That aside, YOU ARE ON POINT!We're saying the same thing.But...It's not really that far fetched considering the fact that any attack on religion or religious people covers Paganism.This' what I mean. Do you think the response in the first link about witchcraft, wiccans, and all that would be the same if those involved were Nigerian Atheists?